A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Oldest objects in the Universe!!!!!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 22nd 03, 12:33 PM
Whisper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
t...
"Whisper" wrote in message
...
So I conclude we will never know, but should endeavour to understand as

much
as possible & enjoy the short time we have......


Okay, then back to the original question. How can we on Earth be (or

were)
further from another object than light could travel since the big bang.

Dark Helmet



Duh. There was no 'big bang', & the speed of light is not the fastest thing
in the universe. As I said, there are 'forces' we can't perceive & beyond
human comprehension. Just accept it.....


  #22  
Old December 22nd 03, 03:22 PM
Greg Neill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
...

Suppose the nebula has been travelling away from us at 1/2 the speed of
light. I have no idea what the relative velocity of these two entities
would be, but I would assume this is on the extreme high-end. Let's

assume
we have maintained this relative velocity consistently since the light
reaching us now originally left the nebula. Therefore, we would have been

9
billion light years away from the nebula 12 billion years ago. The light
travelled for 12 billion years before reaching us, in which time we would
have travelled 3 billion light years from our original point in space

(each
of us would be travelling at 1/4 the speed of light to get a relative
velocity to each other of 1/2 the speed of light).

Net, net, (if I did the right math?) at an assumed expansion rate of 1/2

the
speed of light, we would have been 9 billion light years apart 12 billion
years ago. Or we were 9 billion light years apart when the universe was 2
billion years old. No matter how you slice it, we have a paradox unless

the
big bang created initial velocities greater than the speed of light.

Other
thoughts?


The big bang was not an explosion of matter into pre-existing
space, it was an expansion of space itself. As such, it
carried whatever was embedded in it along for the ride. So
faster than light separation speeds were not a problem, and
aren't now, for widely separated regions of space. Note that
this does not mean that Special Relativity was "broken"; no
bodies or light move faster than light within the local space
where they are embedded.

Separation speeds grow greater the further apart the regions
of space are. This is because when space expands, it expands
(to the best of our knowledge) uniformly at all points. So
your numbers assuming constant separation speeds are not
correct.

The expansion also implies that there is what is called
a "cosmic horizon" beyond which we cannot see and will
never be able to see. The further we look, the faster
things (and space) are receding. At some distance,
depending upon the value of the Hubble constant, the
speed of recession is the speed of light. Regions of
space beyond that are separating from ours at greater
than the speed of light. Light emitted in our direction
from those regions can never reach us, for although the
light is moving towards us at c in that local space, the
space itself is carrying the light away at an even
greater velocity.


  #23  
Old December 22nd 03, 04:28 PM
Greg Neill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Whisper" wrote in message
...

Duh. There was no 'big bang', & the speed of light is not the fastest

thing
in the universe. As I said, there are 'forces' we can't perceive & beyond
human comprehension. Just accept it.....


And your evidence for the above is....?


  #24  
Old December 22nd 03, 06:24 PM
Kilolani
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Greg Neill" wrote in message
.. .
"Whisper" wrote in message
...

Duh. There was no 'big bang', & the speed of light is not the fastest

thing
in the universe. As I said, there are 'forces' we can't perceive &

beyond
human comprehension. Just accept it.....


And your evidence for the above is....?


He can't tell you his evidence... because you couldn't comprehend it!

Isn't that convenient!


  #25  
Old December 22nd 03, 11:15 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The oldest object in the universe is the proton. Hope someone can prove
me wrong. Bert

  #26  
Old December 23rd 03, 01:35 AM
Dark Helmet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
.. .

The big bang was not an explosion of matter into pre-existing
space, it was an expansion of space itself. As such, it
carried whatever was embedded in it along for the ride. So
faster than light separation speeds were not a problem, and
aren't now, for widely separated regions of space. Note that
this does not mean that Special Relativity was "broken"; no
bodies or light move faster than light within the local space
where they are embedded.

Separation speeds grow greater the further apart the regions
of space are. This is because when space expands, it expands
(to the best of our knowledge) uniformly at all points. So
your numbers assuming constant separation speeds are not
correct.

The expansion also implies that there is what is called
a "cosmic horizon" beyond which we cannot see and will
never be able to see. The further we look, the faster
things (and space) are receding. At some distance,
depending upon the value of the Hubble constant, the
speed of recession is the speed of light. Regions of
space beyond that are separating from ours at greater
than the speed of light. Light emitted in our direction
from those regions can never reach us, for although the
light is moving towards us at c in that local space, the
space itself is carrying the light away at an even
greater velocity.


Greg, this makes a lot of sense. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
Now, this leads me to a few more questions. First, what exactly is space
then that allows it to expand faster than than the speed of light? Second,
since light is travelling through expanding space and all space is
expanding, would light only travel at a relative speed of c in an
infinitesimally small area of space? For example, light leaving my monitor
screen at this moment is in a portion of space that is expanding away from
me, although small, so this light will really not reach me at a true speed
of c. Thoughts?

Happy Holidays,

Dark Helmet


  #27  
Old December 23rd 03, 03:59 AM
Greg Neill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
t...

Greg, this makes a lot of sense. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
Now, this leads me to a few more questions. First, what exactly is space
then that allows it to expand faster than than the speed of light?


Well, that's the $64,000 question. A definitive answer to that
would require a grand unifying Theory of Everything. The best
we can do right now is turn to the General Theory of Relativity
and Maxwell's equations for its properties. It boils down to
a handful of properties, such as permitivity and permeability
and curvature. It has no mass, stiffness, or other mechanical
properties.

Second,
since light is travelling through expanding space and all space is
expanding, would light only travel at a relative speed of c in an
infinitesimally small area of space? For example, light leaving my monitor
screen at this moment is in a portion of space that is expanding away from
me, although small, so this light will really not reach me at a true speed
of c. Thoughts?


You would measure a difference in speed if the space between you
and your monitor were expanding. Alas, it is not. The space
occupied by gravitationally bound systems does not participate
in the overall expansion. That means that the space encompassing
us, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, and the local
galactic cluster is not participating in the expansion.


  #28  
Old December 27th 03, 09:18 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you were to bet your life as to what is the oldest object in the
universe. You would stay alive by saying the "proton" Bert

  #29  
Old December 30th 03, 03:40 AM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If mini-bangs can make the universe continuos we will see galaxies that
are very old.(older than our mini-bang that created our universe.)
I read we have found some of these ancient galaxies. Astronomers don't
like the idea the universe is younger than some of its parts. They
should think about it using mini-bangs instead of fudging. My thoughts
would predict these ancient galaxies would be very far away,and might be
so old that they are falling apart. Might be made mostly of brown
dwarfs,white dwarfs,and telling us what the Milky Way will look like 22
billion years from now. Bert

  #30  
Old December 30th 03, 03:36 PM
Greg Neill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
If you were to bet your life as to what is the oldest object in the
universe. You would stay alive by saying the "proton" Bert


Why not the quarks that comprise protons? Or maybe
photons or neutrinos, they would not have had to wait
for the temperature to drop sufficiently to form
bound states.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Breakthrough in Cosmology Kazmer Ujvarosy Space Shuttle 3 May 22nd 04 09:07 AM
Breakthrough in Cosmology Kazmer Ujvarosy Astronomy Misc 3 May 22nd 04 08:07 AM
Breakthrough in Cosmology Kazmer Ujvarosy Amateur Astronomy 4 May 21st 04 11:44 PM
Breakthrough in Cosmology Kazmer Ujvarosy Policy 0 May 21st 04 08:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.